Response to "Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework" - Steven Fraiberg

“…I call for attention to “code mashing” or the complex blending of multimodal and multilingual texts and literacy practices in our teaching and research” (102).
“Turning to the area of world Englishes…the field as a whole remains predominantly focused on talk. Additionally, most of the work on writing focuses on the product as opposed to process” (110).

The Language and Literacy Program at City College has steeped its students in the theories, methodology and pedagogy of adult learning while introducing us to texts and scholarship voicing a call to action in the field. I’ve read several times that there is a need for more research to be done in the classrooms of basic writers. I may be biased but I think the students in this program are capable of taking on such an arduous task. I think the curriculum has prepared us for it.
Because our classrooms are more diverse than the classrooms of 1977’s University of Pittsburgh, Basic Reading and Writing class found in Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts, our students face different challenges than the students who preceded them. The instructors face more challenges as well and I believe we are at a time in literacy and technological history where research should have been started several years ago. If we continue focus on the product of what is written we’ll never develop comprehensive scholarship on the process. Because the process will be different for each student, I think classroom research does not seem that appealing. Not to mention it is time consuming. However, I think research can be appealing especially if approached from the process perspective. We have various students from two to three language homes who come into the classroom with their histories, cultures and languages to share in the discourse of the curriculum. Studying how students remix and integrate their histories into a 21st century basic writing classroom will prove valuable to the next generation of basic writing professionals. I think the challenge is that no writing process is the same. How can one study the process of student’s writing. What goes on cognitively while composing? And do the same thought processes continue when revising? We spoke a great deal about revising this semester and how important revision is to the writing process. We could glean so much if we were to only concentrate on the process of revision for basic writing students who have more than two languages. In addition, we would more than likely take notice of the differences if we concentrated on the process of revision with students who were monolingual. There is a need to study the process of writing but should we concentrate on the composition in lieu of all else. It’s hard to fathom where to begin.
We are on the brink of a digital literacy wave. Hopefully someone is somewhere documenting all the changes that digital literacy is bringing into the classroom. Where we are today will look very elementary in five years. Our students will be different as well. They will want to use whatever medium is available. Technology is becoming ingrained in some curriculums and I do believe before long, there will be no paper texts, assignments, handouts, etc.